1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a large bottomless concrete floating structures, more specifically to the partitioning of the floating structure and how this partitioning results in decreased structural costs, increased dynamic stability and drag reduction for when the island is being moved. The application will describe the construction and the method of construction for a large floating island.
2. Description of the Prior Art
It is advantageous to use, over bodies of water, floating platforms as floating Real Estate or Vessels. The Prior Art has addressed such issues, whereby concrete and other materials are utilized to form a bottomless net work of cells for buoyancy. The instant invention represents improvements over the Prior Art which fails to define a way an Artificial Island of bottomless design should be constructed for good dynamic stability, structural economy and lower drag.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,667,255 issued to Oscar Hermanson on Apr. 24, 1928 discloses a floating island where air is trapped thereby cushioning the structure from the waves. in FIG. 1 Oscar illustrates the partitioning of the structure from bow to stern and near the midpoint. This will decrease the desired cushioning effect. The optimum structure would transmit air from one end of the structure to the other, Mr. Hermanson's claim does not illustrate this. Secondly the structural systems geometry is inefficient and difficult to produce from concrete or steel. Swells of long wavelength could cause undue stresses to form in such a large rigid structure.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,488,542 issued to Amer L. Houghtailing on Nov. 22, 1949 discloses an Artificial Island. The same problems are evident here as described above, additionally Houghtailing uses a completely different method of floatation unrelated to my disclosure. The drag on such a structure in transit would also be very large.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,276,209 issued to Daryl R. Mosdell on Oct. 4, 1966 discloses a Floating Structure with open bottom. The top of each cell is flat and not curved, a curved top to each cell would lend itself to a more efficient structure, addition Mosdell provides no method of transmitting air pressure from one side to the other, Because of this, it would be difficult and expensive to create a large monolithic structure. No taper is provided to aid in the removal from the form work. By having the bottom of so many cells in contact with the water, drag is increase due to the water hitting the cell walls when the Structure is in transit.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,426,109 issued to Harry E. Dempster on Feb. 4, 1969 discloses a Method of Fabricating A Concrete Floatation Pier. Eccept for the tapered walls Demster has the same problems as I described above under Mosdell.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,490,407 issued to Harry E. Dempster on Jan. 20, 1970 is a divisional of U.S. Pat. No. 3,426,109 (see above) and discloses a Concrete Floating Structure as described in the first Demster patent.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,951,085 issued to Don E. Johnson et al. on Apr. 20, 1976 discloses a Floating Structure Arrangement formed of a plurality of cast triangular shapes. Again, the result is cell walls of the same height and with no allowance made for trapped air to travel from one side of the structure to the other, or minimizing structure and drag.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,155,323 issued to Klemens Finsterwalder on May 22, 1979 discloses a method for reducing pitching, rolling or dipping. Finsterwalder changes the effective mass of the Island by changing the amount of water ballast under the structure, this will have a stabilizing effect but is much different than the method used in the enclosed invention. Finsterwalder's invention cannot transmit air from one side of the structure to the other, which necessary to decrease the tendency of the structure to break in half when a large swell moves under the structure. Additionally the drag of such a structure would be quite large.
Japanese Patent JA 0075840 issued to Kiyonori Kikutake on Jun. 25, 1977 discloses a Method of Building a Floating Structure. The Structure comprises a plurality of individual cells rigidly interconnected with no way for the air to move from side to side, unlike the present invention. Kikutake's invention has increased drag and increased structural cost, unlike the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 1,908,714 issued to A. Schneider discloses a design which can be raised or lowered by changing the amount of water ballast in the system. The more mass that is added to the system the more difficult it is for a wave of a given size to move the structure. The present invention does not have to use water as ballast, instead, when the wave enters the large cell, air is displaced by the water and proceeds to move to the trough, in effect averaging the wave height between the crest and the trough. This effect is not seen in Schneider's disclosure. Other differences are sighted above.
Patent Cooperation Treaty Patent Application WO 90/08059 was filed by Ricardo Grechi and published on Jul. 26, 1990. The application discloses a Floating Concrete Platform formed of a plurality of hexagonal units. The cells are completely enclosed, rather than having a bottom open to the water as the present invention.
None of the above patents, taken either singly or in combination, is seen to describe the instant invention as claimed.